Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
in of government at the federal level. that has nothing to do with this. that would be more on the spending cuts. host: what do you make of the back a plan being reported by the new york times saying if we cannot come to some sort of deal, we should just passed tax cuts for the middle class americans and then fight later on for spending cuts and increasing taxes for the wealthy? caller: the tax cut for the general population is great. that would be good for stimulating the economy. but the big thing is hit there needs to be a balanced plan. we need more revenue and we need less spending at the federal level. what is good for california is not good for virginia and what's good for virginia is not good for maryland. maybe we need to focus on reducing the federal government overview. been there would not be as much spending or taxes needed. then let the states deal with the taxes they need to take care of their citizens. host: robert, milwaukee, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that the republican party, not all of them, i think it's just the tea party, they are destroying the republi
secretary of the treasury, alexander hamilton, observe energy is a leading character in good government. the president must lead in a divided government and must not advocate his or her responsibility. president obama has the responsibility to propose a real bipartisan plan to avert the fiscal cliff that can pass both the house and the senate. withdrawing from the recommendations of the simpson- bowles commission, the president could propose a plan that would not only avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but also help us avert the fiscal abyss. if president obama were to offer such a plan, republicans would act favorably. going over the cliff is unnecessary. as it has been observed in "the wall street journal," the president is boxing in the republicans. he is offering them a deal they cannot accept. first, the president has repeatedly called for a balanced solution involving both revenue and less spending. what is obvious to the most casual observer is that this plan is not a balanced. the fiscal cliff involves nearly four dollars of anticipated revenue from higher taxes for every dollar
, as we try to govern this country in the 21st century. and i look forward to staying in touch with jim and to working with him at the heritage foundation to see what we can do to improve the fate of our country so we will not become greece. no one is more worried about this nation's unsustainable debt situation than senator demint. i've seen him deinvolve over time to someone who could just not sit quietly, who had to take up the cause. in the 2010 election cycle, he was one of the strongest voices is he h would a lost our way that we'd lost our way in washington. jim is a kind, sincere man, an individual who is a joy to be around. when it comes to what's going on america, jim undstands that if we don't make some changes we're going to lose our way of life. that's what's driven him above all else, to try to keep our country a place to be place where you can be anything. i look forward to working with jim in the private sector. from a personal point of view, we've had a great ride together. it has been fun. it has been challenging, and i think we put south carolina on the map in differe
. and so, listen, i understand ideologically why people who believe that they want to shrink government up so small they can drown it in a bathtub may always lead that way, but it's not in the best interest of the american people in my humble opinion. >> i am going to be measured in my response because you all have an obligation to ask questions. but i hope at some point you all who have heard us on this side and the other side of the aisle talking about this will do the math, quite honestly. i can tabulate very quickly for you $3 trillion worth of cuts that have now gone into law that democrats have been there on the tough -- on those tough negotiations. the chairman mentioned $1 trillion that was exacted as a result of the budget control act where the republicans were threatening for the first time have the nation default on its credit if we didn't do something. $1 trillion. that's already taking place, the $1 trillion in cuts. there's another $1.2 trillion that came from the same law, as we know, as the sequester, that also by law will start to take place. that's $2.2 trillion. we talke
, security, public safety, those are the fundamental obligations of government. and secondly, we live in an increasingly dangerous world with increasing threats against our citizens and targets that are viewed as high profile. for those reasons, mr. speaker and others, i earnestly believe those who serve this country as president should never have to worry about their personal safety. under current law, protection for president obama and president george w. bush will cease after 10 years. both men are young, enjoy good health and have long lives ahead of them postpresidency. this bill proposes to extend that security for the remainder of their lives. there's an unintended anomaly, mr. speaker, that were current law not changed, barbara bush would have more safety than if they were president themselves. the person and the symbol of our presidency is safe and secure for the occuration of their natural lives. with that i would yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, before i yield to the distinguished gentlelady fr
it will undermine democratic governments. it will continue to impede economic growth overseas and it will strengthen us right here in the united states. in other words, this isn't just an economic issue or a health care issue. it's a national security issue. unfortunately, mr. speaker, over the last decade acting in our national security interest has come to mean invading and occupying foreign nations. the iraq war lasted nine years and was responsible for untold human misery. the afghanistan war, now in its 12th year, and it continues to damage our national security interest, instead of enhancing them. it hasn't defeated the taliban, nor has it alleviating crushing poverty or produced a stable democracy in afghanistan. and then there's the cost. some $10 billion a month. that would be a staggering amount of money for a successful policy. for a failed policy, it's downright scandalous, and it is rarely mentioned in all the conversations about so-called deficit crisis and fiscal cliffs. usaid and other civilian arms of government could do a world of good towards solving the aids crisis with a fractio
to run a government but also can deliver on the pornts things that makes it different for job creation. we're the folks that run the education systems that allow us to have the work force, the 21st-century jobs. that is what we get from higher education to work force training, the real obstacle and the income growth right now is having the best education systems. where we are producing the workers of the 21st century. second, we keep the bridges open and hopefully functional and rebuilt. we represent environmental policies to keep our water clear and take on the environmental challenges that we're facing. it is where the rubber hits the road that we need to get the results. we have democratic governors who not only balance budgets understand that they have to be fiscally responsible but we combine that with a vision on education, on ensuring that we get it right when it comes to technology, making sure we have a trained work force for the jobs that aring with created, so we can be the job creators and we see incomes rise on our constituent. that is what voters judge you by. when we com
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7